"It's 150 years since the launch of the world's first collective investment fund, Foreign & Colonial Investment Trust. We look back at its history and highlight other funds in the 100 Club.Why is this important?It's a story about the ..."

Jeremy Naylor is joined by Angelos Damaskos, from Junior Oil Trust, to talk about the long-term implications of the drop in oil prices in 2016 and the possibility of it to lead to higher oil prices over the next few years.

700 mmbo doesn't sound like an elephant field, especially in deep water where exploitation will be expensive and risky. No doubt the geology model backs up the gamble.

Meanwhile Exxon is having exploration success off French Guiana where there hasn't even been an oil industry.

The landscape is changing. I hadn't heard of the Shell spokesman Andy Brown, Upstream Director until these stories. Now he's quoted in both the Deepwater one and the Shale one (Shell interested in BHP Permian assets).

Restructuring at oil giant Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa) is leaving it well positioned for the medium-term but also offers compelling long-term opportunities for investors, says Jefferies.

Analyst Jason Gammel retained his buy recommendation but upgraded the target price from £28.90 to £31.80. The shares were trading at £23 yesterday.

The restructuring of the Shell portfolio leaves it well positioned for the medium term, he said. In the near term, the driver of the stock will be delivery of the well-defined financial targets from each of Shells businesses.

He added that Shell also offers compelling opportunity for long-term investors.
Shell has one of the most sustainable business models in the sector, capable of fully funding the dividend with free cashflow when oil prices are at the bottom of the cycle but also generating strong free cashflow in a moderate oil price environment, said Gammel. "

LONDON/HOUSTON (Reuters) - The gasps in the audience were clearly audible at the auction of Mexicos oil blocks a month ago as Royal Dutch Shells hefty bids were announced one by one.

The size of Shells cash payments - $343 million out of the total of $525 million that Mexico earned in the sale - far outstripped its competitors offers, guaranteeing that the company swept up nine of the 19 offshore blocks.

The Anglo-Dutch major knew something no one else did.

Six months earlier, its drilling rig had struck a giant oil reservoir, the Whale well, in the U.S. side of the Gulf of Mexico - just across the border from many of the Mexican blocks, which share a similar Paleogene-age geology.

Calculating that this significantly increased the chances of the Mexican blocks also containing treasure, Shell delayed the announcement of the discovery until the day of the auction, after bids had been submitted.

Post the Whale discovery we had some geological insights. It is not by accident we didnt announce it until the day of the bid, Andy Brown, Shells head of oil and gas production, told Reuters.The nine blocks give us significant potential.

The geological intelligence gleaned from the Whale discovery explains why Shell (RDSa.L) bid so aggressively for the Mexican blocks, something that had confounded industry experts.

It could also offer insight into the rationale underpinning its bet that Latin America - particularly Mexico and Brazil - will be a major source of new reserves as its current resources dwindle.

Shell, or any other explorer, is not legally obliged to publicly disclose a discovery. The fact that its first major exploration success in over 10 years came adjacent to blocks coming up for auction was a matter of good fortune, while the timing of the announcement was canny.

Shell has not yet released any estimates for the Whales recoverable resources, but two industry sources close to the exploration project put the figure at up to 700 million barrels of oil. That equates to about half of Shells 2017 oil production and would make the reservoir one of the biggest discoveries of the past decade in the industry.

Shell declined to comment on the potential size of the reserves.

Fossil fuels like oil are formed over millions of years in specific rock formations, which geologists and explorers try to identify via seismic studies and drilling to predict where resources might be found.

But, even though a similar geology might increase the chances of similar exploration success, there are no guarantees, and luck is always a big factor. So there is no certainty that the Mexican blocks will yield commercial volumes of oil.

Shell acquired large amounts of specialized seismic data before the auction, about Whale and the Mexican blocks, to try to gain a better sense of the geological formations and potential oil reserves under the seabed, according to a source at an oil services company that provides such information.

Even for us it was surprising the way Shell bid during Mexicos deepwater auction. They really wanted the blocks close to the border, which indicates there must be a link between the formation in the U.S. and in Mexico, the source added.

Shell needs to replenish its oil and gas reserves to maintain its production into the 2030s. Aside from the $54 billion acquisition of BG Group in 2016, which boosted its reserves, the company has had limited success in recent years.

Last year, it was able to replace only 27 percent of its production, while on a three-year average, the figure was 78 percent, the company disclosed in its full-year results. The decline in reserves means that at the end of 2017 Shell had enough reserves to sustain its production for 8.9 years, compared with around 10.5 years in 2015.

RDS may have been talking all touchy-feely about renewables and EVs of late but that doesn't mean they aren't up for a bit more fracking in the permian as reported below.

I hold BHP but a lot more RDSB and whilst I'd be happy to see BHP sell, not sure I'd be keen for RDS to buy.

The synergy with RDS existing permian assets maybe make that work, the permian may offer oil as low as $15 but I'd be surprised if Shell's costs were as low as that which makes it seem vulnerable to oil price and once the Saudi's have got their Aramco float away I wonder whether their commitment to production quotas will be quite as strong.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc said its potentially interested in BHP Billiton Ltd.s oil assets on sale in the Permian basin in the U.S. as it seeks to boost its role in shale.

The Anglo-Dutch company entered the prolific oil region in 2012 and plans to expand its position and generate positive cash flow next year, Andy Brown, Shells upstream director, said in an interview on Tuesday. The Permian offers production costs as low as $15 a barrel and is the driving force behind the current surge in U.S. output.

Shell will look at opportunities to bulk up our shale position, Brown said at the International Petroleum Week conference in London. BHP has good assets that overlap our own acreage in the Permian, and may be interesting for us. He didnt say if the companies are currently talking.

More from Bloomberg.com: Mueller's Move on Ex-Skadden Lawyer Puts Heat on Manafort, Gates

BHP is accelerating plans to exit its $10 billion U.S. shale unit and said deals could be announced before the end of the year. BHP is prepared to offer the assets in as many as seven packages, including three in the prized Permian Basin, people with knowledge of the producers plans said this month. It expects initial bids for assets including the Fayetteville field in the June quarter, according to a statement Tuesday.

We do see the potential there, we do see us performing very well there, Brown said about the Permian. Shell is currently spending more on deep-water projects, but the company will look over time to push a bit harder on that shale business.

More from Bloomberg.com: Morgan Stanley Says Stock Slide Was Appetizer for Real Deal

BSIF and TRIG ;-) Take that into account and the EV is not only much more efficient in itself but so is it's ultimate source of energy. As it happens I drive a car with a 210hp diesel but I'd still be left for dead by a Tesla. 
I have some BSIF so cant fault that decision,it does seem good practice to link solar energy to electric vehicles otherwise what is the point.
Ive seen a few projects that use PV panels and home made battery packs so as to charge there converted vehicles using solar I find it very interesting although the costs dont seem to stack up just yet.
Its hard to not be impressed by Tesla cars but the price is unbelievable,maybe by the time my Audi engine packs up there may be a good conversion kit for it otherwise I will keep it Diesel for now.

I suspect the quoted 350kW of power is for the whole charging station, which may have many plug-in outlets to cope with the potential peaks of demand.

So at, say, 7kW for each outlet you could simultaneously charge 50 EVs, and pro-rata.

But agree with others that battery technology is key here. For the time being I would not personally invest in the purchase of an EV but would consider a hybrid to reduce range anxiety if they made one as good as my Octavia VRS!

I'm pretty sure that the brains at RDSB and BP are already working on a future with less dependence on oil.

The efficiency of electricity production vs the efficiency of petrol/diesel production & transportation is a separate issue.

On that note we've recently switched from EDF to Tonik Energy for electricity and gas, mainly because they offered a very good deal but also because they buy the electricity from renewable sources - such as BSIF and TRIG ;-) Take that into account and the EV is not only much more efficient in itself but so is it's ultimate source of energy. As it happens I drive a car with a 210hp diesel but I'd still be left for dead by a Tesla.

A quick google search:
" Once the energy is onboard (not counting the efficiency of the power generation, oil refining, or charging), the Tesla is using only about a third as much energy as the comparable gasoline-powered car. "
https://www.quora.com/How-energy-efficient-are-electric-motors-compared-to-combustion-engines

So with next-technology batteries (whatever they might be) electric vehicles will come of age and be a viable choice for far more people than they currently are. Present-day limitations are not fault of the electric motors but the batteries.

Electric motors are vastly more efficient than ICEs and at the moment it looks like EVs will become increasingly popular but the problem for me is still the batteries. IMHO until a newer, better energy density, not to mention safer battery technology becomes available then I can't see the ICE being a thing of the past. 
I have looked at energy efficiency in appliances and what they tend to do is focus un efficiency from the plug socket and forget about the efficiency generating the Electricity and delivering it to the wall socket,so Electric generation seems to be around 60% efficient thats why you pay 12p per kWh when gas is less than 3p per kWh and a 100% efficient electric heater still costs you more to run because they take no account of the generation.

The MTOW of an EC135 is 2,910 Kg. If we assume Pad Mc Pad's little old granny weighs 50 Kg her power to weight ratio at the point of launch would be 58 times more than an EC135. That's pretty impressive for anyone's granny. Assuming granny is quite slim she would also create far less drag than an EC135 as long as her arms don't flap about at launch. Therefore I would say granny is go for launch and should have enough kinetic energy to reach low earth orbit at least, if not escape velocity.

A small helicopter such as an EC135 produces a maximum power of 600kW per engine (there are normally two engines operating) and can get you to a maximum height of 20,000 feet (though they normally operate much lower) so to the Moon is a bit of rhetoric!

"I am not an electrical engineer but 350 kilowatts of power at 240 volts is around 1458.3 amps."

I am an electrical engineer and I wouldn't want my granny handling 350Kw of power! If you can be thrown across a room with home electrics (7.2Kw Max) 350Kw would send you to the moon
I think you have your figures wrong whoever posted that.

Yes, absolutely correct! The difference here though, is that diesel, petrol and gas are very much understood and known risks by all except Darwin Awards nominees. Conventional batteries (FLAs) are also pretty simple and can withstand quite a lot of abuse, although these can also be dangerous in the wrong hands.

But Lithium-based batteries are much less tolerant of charging irregularities, usage outside of safe parameters, physical damage or internal chemistry anomalies, any of which can result in thermal runaway and increased risk of fire, which can be very difficult to extinguish. In other words it's not necessarily only fools and Darwin Awards nominees that might experience a Lithium 'event' - hence the Dreamliner/catamaran/numerous EV fires - lots of reports, pictures and videos on the internet.

Electric motors are vastly more efficient than ICEs and at the moment it looks like EVs will become increasingly popular but the problem for me is still the batteries. IMHO until a newer, better energy density, not to mention safer battery technology becomes available then I can't see the ICE being a thing of the past.

ASAND,
1. Convenience of charging is key.
2. Second is range of EVs.
I speak for myself as a Leaf owner.

1. I keep the car in a garage in which I have a charger, I charge the car perhaps twice a week and it is fully charged by the following morning. Plugging/unplugging take less than a minute. More convenient than having to go to a filling station.
2. My Leaf has a realistic range fully charged of about 125 miles, less in winter, but I find that is adquate for my needs which ar mostly local - supermarket, doctor, library etc. I do about 2500 miles/month. Range is not a concern, but if I do need to make a long journey I will rent a car or take the train.

The Leaf and others are aimed at a niche market, like me. I am delighted with it.
1. It is very cheap to run, electricity costs me £100/year
2. The VEL is still required but is zero rated so costs nothing.
3. Servicing/repairs are cheap since there is far less to go wrong - no cooling system, no engine oil, no oil filter, no exhaust system.
4. It is automatic.
5. It is near silent and gives the impression of being in an expensive class.
6. The heating system delivers within a minute compared to perhaps 5 minutes warm up for an ICE car.

FRTEB, I looked at youtube searching on Lithium Ion and found plenty of examples of firework displays, however almost all of them resulted from deliberate abuse, such as a guy driving staples into the battery and thereby short-circuiting the device. There was a similar demonstration on the Royal Institution Christmas lectures (about 2 years ago I believe) where the demonstrator drove a nail into a mobile phone.

You are right to be concerned thaough with fires caused by faults in manufacture, especially in situations that are safety critical, like the catamaran you mentioned. Another example was the Boeing Dreamliner, please see WIKI,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner_battery_problems

Samsung recently had problems with a range of mobile phones spontaneously catching fire.

I might mention that petrol is also a flammable hydrocarbon and you would not wish to be immolated in a fire in your car. You might read about Ralph Nader taking on the Ford Motor Company regarding the safety of the Pinto in a rear end collision. Here is a Wiki quote:-

The safety of the design of the Pinto's fuel system led to critical incidents and subsequently resulted in a recall, lawsuits, a criminal prosecution, and public controversy. The events surrounding the controversy have been described both as a "landmark narrative"[45] and mythical.[46] The Ford Pinto has been cited and debated in numerous business ethics[47][48] as well as tort reform[49][50] case studies.
The placement of the car's fuel tank was the result of both conservative industry practice of the time as well the uncertain regulatory environment during the development and early sales periods of the car. Ford was accused of knowing the car had an unsafe tank placement then forgoing design changes based on an internal cost benefit analysis. Two landmark legal cases, Grimshaw vs Ford and State of Indiana vs Ford resulted from fatal accidents involving Pintos.[51]
Scholarly work published in the decades after the Pinto's release have examined the cases and offered summations of the general understanding of the Pinto and the controversy regarding the car's safety performance and risk of fire. These works also reviewed misunderstandings related to the actual number of fire related deaths related to the fuel system design, "wild and unsupported claims asserted in Pinto Madness and elsewhere",[52] the facts of the related legal cases, Grimshaw vs Ford Motor Company and State of Indiana vs Ford Motor Company, the applicable safety standards at the time of design, and the nature of the NHTSA investigations and subsequent vehicle recalls.[53]

" Try looking at over charging and testing lithium ion batteries on you tube if you like firework displays! "

That's one reason why we haven't yet switched over to Lithium batteries on our boat (the other is cost). Potentially there's a huge weight saving to be had but the risks of fire increase dramatically. I know of one large catamaran that was burnt to the waterline because of a fault in the Lithium BMS. I know there are several different types of Lithium batteries but there have been problems of varying degrees with most (all?) of them. Phones (batteries) bursting into flames, fires on aircraft, boats being destroyed... Imagine being 150NM out at sea with a Lithium battery fire that you can't extinguish... No thank you. I'll stick with my bank of Sonnenschein gels, all 189KG of them + the FLAs for the engines and generator.

I really like the idea of EVs but it's still the battery technology that's holding them back. When we can get a similar amount of (safe) electrical energy out of the same space as a diesel tank then we'll see EV's outnumber ICE vehicles. Until then, it's for early adopters only I think.

"The chargers would provide up to 350 kilowatts of power, allowing a car to be charged in five to 12 minutes".

I am not an electrical engineer but 350 kilowatts of power at 240 volts is around 1458.3 amps.

The supply to an average house is only 100 amps to put the above into perspective.

So...Would the EV batteries be able to take such a power input in such a short space of time? Are they designed for this? I understand that all EV batteries are not the same spec or design so will the charges be a "smart" charger which will distinguish between the type of battery?

Charging a battery is not like filling a fuel tank. It is a electro chemical reaction and is difficult to control safely the faster you want to do it. This is what all battery scientists are tying to solve at the moment. Its relatively easy putting in powerful charging points (but I don't know who people in Flats and terraced houses will go on), but you can only put so much power down a small diameter cable. So how big will the cables need to be to connect to your EV?

Move development of battery technology need me thinks before I will try an EV.

Try looking at over charging and testing lithium ion batteries on you tube if you like firework displays!

"identified 50 key sites, which would put 90% of drivers within 50 miles of a charger, the newspaper reported.

The chargers would provide up to 350 kilowatts of power, allowing a car to be charged in five to 12 minutes"

Apart from the 9 hours queuing up to get to the point - I live in a flat in the UK at present - there are two charge points about 250 metres away which are nearly always unused due to lack of demand - an over rapid phasing out int comb engines would only lead to chaos in the near term - dont forget its being driven by politicians who have an appalling record for managing anything other than a large order at the (subsidized) commons bar

I also spend a (growing) portion of each year in the far east - EVs there are 50yrs away - I'm holding shell in my pension fund for income and growth

Interesting, St.M., I didn't realise there were such conditions attached to EV charging. I'll be waiting a few more years, say five, before I consider changing my present diesel car. I'm pretty slow in taking up new technology, preferring to wait until problems get ironed out.

Lupo, thanks for the link. You are probably aware that I own a Nissan Leaf so most of my experience relates to that product. Nissans advice on charging to prolong battery life is: -

Avoid exposing a vehicle to ambient temperatures above 120 °F (49 °C) for over 24 hours.
Avoid storing a vehicle in temperatures below &#8722;13 °F (&#8722;25 °C) for over 7 days.
Avoid exceeding 70% to 80% state of charge when using frequent (more than once per week) fast or quick charging.
Allow the battery charge to go below 80% before charging.
Avoid leaving the vehicle for over 14 days where the Li-ion battery available charge gauge reaches a zero or near zero (state of charge).

At my last service I was given a printout of my cars battery state according to gradual loss of battery capacity. It lists 3 causes of loss of capacity.

1. Frequent use of quick charging
2. Frequent charging when battery state is already high
3. Related to driving habits - too much electric consumption while driving.

I got 5 stars for each and I believe that other EV manufacturers would make the same recommendations as Nissan. Regarding fast charging, it will charge to 80% in 30 minutes BUT Nissan limits it to 80%, whereas using a slow domestic charger it charges to 100%

The National Grid article envisages a network of super quick chargers which alarms me because it would encourage habits that would result in shortening the life of the battery, or at least, that of the current generation of Lithium Ion batteries. Of course, new technology might bring us more robust, higher capacity batteries, but that is for the future.

LONDON (Alliance News) - National Grid is considering plans for the installation of a network of super-fast electric vehicle charging points along UK's motorways, fed by its existing electricity transmission network, the Financial Times reported Monday.

The FTSE 100-listed company, which operates the country's high-voltage power grid, has mapped the UK's motorways and identified 50 key sites, which would put 90% of drivers within 50 miles of a charger, the newspaper reported.

The chargers would provide up to 350 kilowatts of power, allowing a car to be charged in five to 12 minutes, compared to the normal 20 to 40 minutes. It takes roughly seven minutes on average to fuel a petrol car."

(ShareCast News) - Morgan Stanley downgraded its view on shares of BP by one notch from 'overweight' to 'equalweight', predicting that management would continue to prioritise debt reduction over the dividend payout.

Elsewhere in the sector on the other hand, Total and Statoil had rocked the proverbial boat with their recently announced dividend hikes.

Indeed, it was chiefly due to the above that the broker downgraded BP, as it was limited to two 'overweights' in the sector.

Thus, while the broker's recommendation on Royal Dutch Shell stayed at 'overweight', that on Total was increased from 'equalweight' to 'overweight'.

The decisions from Total and Statoil marked an 'inflection point' for the sector, Morgan Stanley said, adding that it was "reflective of the improvement that insiders were seeing".

Yet while Total's dividend cover-by-free cash flow was seen reaching a "particularly strong" 155% by 2019, in BP's case that ratio was only expected to improve to around 95% in 2018 and then 110% in 2019.

Combined with a less robust balance sheet, that would see management prioritise debt reduction, Morgan Stanley said.

Even so, as confidence grew in its payout, Morgan Stanley expected the shares' dividend yield to fall.

Worth noting, the broker also revised its target prices for all three stocks lower, with BP's falling from 645p to 550p, Total's from 56.0 to 55.6 and Shell's from 3,040p to 2,830p.

The target price cut on Shell was despite the broker's forecasts calling for it to be the next to raise its dividend, with its free cash flow reaching $21bn in 2018 on an oil price of $64 a barrel, rising to $24bn in 2020 at $60 oil, resulting in FCF dividend covers of about 135% and 155% in each of those years.

"If history is any guide, BP's financial outlook is strong enough so that investors do not demand a yield much bigger than ~5.2% [from 6.2% at present], which is our target yield by end-2018. This still suggests a return prospect of ~23% - healthy but less strong that its two direct peers (Total and Shell)."

Looks like Shell have dusted down their Quadrant energy joint venture files from the 90s. Not sure billing and servicing millions of small customers is a business for Shell and not why I bought back in.

Wondering if this is a red-herring. The not-so-big-anymore six have lost about 30% of their value no thanks to overdone fears of prices caps and a McDonnell fantasy about cost-neutral irreversible nationalisation of what he still thinks of as public assets.

Why would Shell want some of that, why in Dec 2017 did they snap up First Utility one of the scaled up challengers with approaching 1 million customers but reported since last Summer to be struggling to carry their losses. Acquiring customers with discounted switching rates is not profitable or sustainable. First Utility in the process pointing this to be the start of consolidation. If it was struggling on the "going concern" test imagine how many others - Utility Warehouse, Green Star, Ovo, etc.

This 'orderly markets' move to snap up a bargain-cum-black hole by Shell (the only interested party, probably not) goes a long way to saving the govt and Ofgem from an embarrassing failure. Interference in the market is ruining both ends while doing nothing to make domestic energy any more affordable. Ofgem's £57pa extra on the 2018 safeguard tariff is a 5%+ increase for 1 million households least able to afford last year's average bill. The govt now eyeing a universal SVT cap to "protect" those voters sorry consumers who, er, can afford to pay or switch if they want.

Spotted the end of coal, really well done Emily Gosden eco warrior tourist and Smart Meter champion, the cub energy editor of The Times by way of being too hip for The Telegraph and now too old for that kindergarten from "The Secret Life of 5 Year Olds". You have reported the wrong story here, again.

It was more about Shell petrol forecourts and your driveway or nearest lamp post becoming NewMotion e-stations rather than wanting to become a regulated domestic dual fuel retailer? Buy up gas and renewable power generation assets from who exactly ... spring up a few more wind farms ... acquire more struggling challenger companies ... conglomerate private rooftop solar panels and plug e-cars into a virtual grid ... ship in electrons over power interconnectors when the wind doesn't blow?

The dust will settle, we will be back to the same old big-six type scenario just a different big six or five or four. One of which might be called Amazon Energy, they will need to charge up all their driverless logistics e-vehicles and warehouse robots and delivery drones. Big will win, Shell should have a bigger target in mind.

LONDON (Alliance News) - Royal Dutch Shell PLC plans to challenge the UK's "Big Six" energy suppliers by buying gas-fired power plants and building wind and solar farms across Britain, The Times reported Saturday.

The Anglo-Dutch oil & gas producer will use its network of 1,000 petrol stations to market the venture and sign up household and business energy customers, Maarten Wetselaar, Shell's head of integrated gas and new energies, told The Times. The eventual aim is to offer related services, such as electric car charging in homes.

According to the newspaper, Wetselaar said that Shell had "significant advantages" over the Big Six energy generators and distributors â Centrica PLC's British Gas, SSE PLC, Scottish Power, Npower, Eon and EDF â because it was starting "without any of the legacy that they have, in terms of coal-fired power plants or big bureaucracies or IT systems from the wrong century".

Back in December, Shell Petroleum Co Ltd, a unit of Shell, had said it agreed to buy UK household energy and broadband provider First Utility and its German subsidiary First Utility GmbH for an undisclosed sum.

The acquisition complements Shell's growing network of forecourt charging points and recent acquisition of NewMotion, Europe's largest vehicle charging providers, the company had said. The deal is subject to regulatory and other approvals and is expected to complete early next year.

"This combination will enable Shell to enter a new part of the energy market in the UK and to improve choice for customers by delivering innovative services at competitive prices," Mark Gainsborough, Shell's executive vice president of new energies, said in December.

See
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4144552-royal-dutch-shell-q4-earnings-results-show-reasons-caution?auth_param=1eck5v:1d7osan:a9fb7fbf796d605b1d6d87bdbaa87ecb&dr=1&uprof=46&utoken=72ce093b03cb3483ca5ae04272a0b497b2d79f2a

"The UK stockmarket ended 2017 brightly, but it still lags most other developed stockmarkets. The @GB:UKX:FTSE All-Share index has gained 36.5% over the past five years to the end of 2017, compared with 119% and 87.5% for Japan's Nikkei and the ..."

The word 'awesome' is overused but the launch, etc really was an awesome spectacle. Watching the rockets' landing gear extend before touchdown reminded me of watching Thunderbirds on TV 40-odd years ago. Then viewing the live view from the Tesla in space listening to David Bowie on the car's stereo was surreal. Can't fault Elon Musk for his ability and vision.

The maiden flight of SpaceX's (Private:SPACE) Falcon Heavy is scheduled for 01/06/2018 1:30 p.m. from the Kennedy Space Center.
Following liftoff, two of the rocket's cores will return to the landing pad, while the third core will land on a droneship at sea.
As for the cargo? A cherry red Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) Roadster will be launched into a heliocentric deep space orbit while blasting David Bowie's Space Oddity.

Royal Dutch Shell has revealed a doubling in profits but investors were left disappointed by the oil major's failure to commit to buying back shares.

A rally in the oil market last year boosted Shell's cash flows enough to restart full dividend payouts for shareholders. However a dip in cashflow in the fourth quarter meant that management refused to say when it would begin to buy back the shares it paid out in lieu of dividends during the market rout.

Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.

The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.

The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.